Analyze from the following aspects to answer the question of whether the gods of all beings are different or not, and how to establish them: Question 1: Are the gods of all beings different or the same? My own understanding is that from their own point of view, it should be allogeneic. Otherwise, if one person becomes a Buddha, all beings will become Buddhas; And one person goes to hell, and all beings go to hell. But this is not the case. I wonder if this understanding is correct? A: From the perspective of justice, neither sentient beings nor Buddha can be established, let alone how the mind and knowledge of each sentient being are integrated and different. So right and wrong are different; Judging from the common and different feelings of famous sayings or other sentient beings, in different laws, all sentient beings' respective natures can be based on their farewell, and your understanding here has some truth; If from the reality of famous sayings or the self-expression of every living body, the present and the heart are integrated rather than different, then your understanding here is worth analyzing and observing. In that famous saying, what is presented in reality is integrated with the heart rather than different. Is there a saying that "one person becomes a Buddha and all beings become a Buddha"? One person goes to hell, and all beings go to hell. "What about the fault? There must be nothing wrong! Because what is now divided into realm and heart, if we say from the perspective of knowledge only, "there is no realm at all, only heart." "The status quo is not established, the situation is only the phase of the heart, and the status quo and the heart should be one. Self-mind can't directly reach his heart, assuming that self-mind may reach his heart, but what is displayed in front of self-mind is only the separate development or very similar image of his heart, not the real self-mind, so the present self-mind and self-mind are still one. As far as the Buddha is concerned, it is his idea that all beings have no self. Why? For example, in On China, it is said that "there is no life and no death, and silence is like nirvana. The book "On the Interpretation of Quantity" also said: "Yoga is incredible. "Because of the true wisdom, the relationship between Buddhism and wisdom and all other laws is unspeakable and cannot be measured in a comprehensive and other way, which completely transcends all drama theories and is an incredible realm. Since the self-image of all sentient beings is the image of their own heart, not their own reality and mind, the six methods are all attributed to their own unique knowledge and only one heart. Why do other beings become Buddhas or go to hell? In fact, it is only about the hearts of all beings! Understand these truths, you can get rid of "one person becomes a Buddha, and all beings become a Buddha; One person goes to hell, and all beings go to hell. "Waiting for doubt. Question 2: If this is the case, then what we usually say, all beings who appear in front of my own realm are manifestations in my heart, all based on my karma and so on. This appearance should be said to be only the behavior of all sentient beings I can perceive, not the god of all sentient beings? In fact, the gods of all beings are not realized in my heart, but exist elsewhere? A: From the point of view of all beings, at present this is only an external meaning, not an internal contextual meaning. As far as the reality of famous sayings or self-presentation is concerned, on the positive side, if the habit of internal continuation is mature, even if it has no external meaning, it will show behavior. Such as purulent blood in front of hungry ghosts or emptiness in front of empty beings. On the contrary, if the habit of succession is immature, even if it has external significance, it is impossible to appear. For example, there is no clean water in front of a hungry ghost and no color in front of empty beings. Therefore, the only manifestation of all beings comes from the self-mind, not from the external environment, so the manifestation of all beings should be integrated with the self-mind. The mind of all beings is not directly accessible to ordinary beings, but can only be accessed by waiting or walking in samadhi, and this access is just an image taken from the heart and very similar to his heart. His heart is not unique from now on, nor is it realized by other hearts. Why do you say that? Because in terms of self-existence, there is no external environment and environment, only one's own heart, and all appearances are self-awareness. Besides mature habits, how can he exist? So is there only one kind of sentient beings in dharma? No, no, he went on. Can't it be established? If the hypothesis is established, how can all beings create karma, make things, contact and communicate. Because there is no external self-existence meaning? From their own feelings and self-presentation, it is impossible to establish that there is reality outside the heart, and he continues to establish it in front of the heart; However, as far as the famous sayings or the common or non-common dependence of other sentient beings are concerned, it can still be established that all sentient beings are not alone in the legal world. For example, the yoga teacher's "On the Earth" said: "How does the cloud establish continuous differences? There are four kinds of knowing each other. Because of his different roots, he has four stages: one is self-continuity; Second, his body continues; Third, the root is continuous; Fourth, the realm is continuous. "On the nature of discrimination, it is said:" Born according to people, born after death, bound and freed. You will have different reasons and different names. "In this theory, nine methods are listed to illustrate the irrelevance of the sentient world. The nine laws are: dependence, separation, suffering, happiness, karma, death, life, bondage and liberation. Because these nine methods are different from other beings, they are called incompatibility. Here, take "bondage and liberation" as an example: all beings themselves are bound by samsara and freed from samsara. Whether it is life and death, or bondage and liberation, there are different methods. It's like my life is broken, but he is still alive; I am reincarnated in the afterlife, and he cannot walk with me; I am free from reincarnation, and he is still alive and dead; I am bound by life and death, and I will not prevent him from feeling free. Therefore, they are all sentient things. Because we have nothing in common with him, we call it disagreement. How do all beings create karma, how do they pretend, and how do they communicate with each other? From the aspect of all sentient beings in the legal world, all sentient beings have no external significance in their own self-expression. In order to distinguish them from external fate, they are said to have increased their sharpness. It is he who continues to increase the edge, not the edge, and establishes the mutual affectation of others. It can be said that all beings have no external meaning of their respective fates, but they can rely on the origin of dharma, connect falsehood with affectation and increase each other. It's incredible. For example, "On the Differentiation between Law and Law" said: "There are similarities and differences in the emotional world. "That is to say, the laws adopted by the sentient world have similarities and differences. In this theory, eight examples are cited to illustrate the universal significance of the sentient world, namely, the famous sayings of "having children" and "body language", that is, accepting one person with one person, punishing one person with one person, forgiving others, harming others, and relying on others to make merits and demerits. Why do you call these sentient beings vulgar? In this theory, it is said that "from mutual increase, mutual cause" is because of mutual increase, so it is called common. Here, take "merit" as an example: for example, I rely on the master's lecture to produce the merit of smelling the law. These merits need two factors, on the one hand, I take smell as the main reason, on the other hand, I want to take biography as the upper edge, so mutual karma will produce the result of obtaining the merits of smelling the law, so I rely on others to produce merits and so on. We call it ordinary. In a word, all beings have no external meaning of separate karma, but they can rely on false karma, increase each other and create karma with each other. You can also use your own realm to feel the fruit according to your own industry; Relying on cultivation such as monasticism, everyone will be liberated according to his own career, and even become a Buddha by self-interest and altruism. The origin of Buddhism is really strange! Therefore, from these aspects, there will be no "one person becomes a Buddha, and all beings become a Buddha; "One person goes to hell, and all beings go to hell." Too much waiting. Q 3。 For example, I am chatting with my friend. Can I understand this scene like this: as far as gods are concerned, the other person is different from my god, not my heart, otherwise I will become a Buddha or fall, and the other person should become a Buddha or fall at the same time, which seems to be a mistake; As far as the appearance of the other person in my eyes is concerned, including everything about the other person judged by my six senses, it is really from the heart and will change with my succession. For example, what I feel now is definitely different from what I feel after becoming a Buddha. A: This question is as above, just adding a few points: When all beings pretend to be each other, they are just adding to each other and chatting with friends. In fact, it is a common appearance before awakening common habits, rather than an independent existence outside the heart. It is completely caused by mature and identical habits, not to say that there are really friends outside the heart. Similarly, the way I look in front of my friends is entirely caused by the same mature habits. It's not that I really exist as a friend outside my heart, but a self-presented image of each other. No matter how things change, is there anything else besides whether their habits are mature or not? As for "the other person I feel now is definitely different from what I felt after I became a Buddha." This statement only exists in the realm of ordinary people's view of the world, and cannot represent the realm of Buddha's pure view. The realm of Buddha is incredible. How can you feel the same way as ordinary people look at the world now? In short, the so-called common view, if it is based on the same phase in front of all sentient beings, is actually only a separate phase of all sentient beings; Because all beings are separated from each other, the appearance before separation can never be truly universal. Such as Zhang, Wang and Li. Don't follow each other. The appearance in front of Zhang's heart can never be integrated with the appearance in front of Wang, Li and other sentient beings. We are only talking about similarity or similarity in appearance, so there is still a big difference between the two in observation and observation, that is, we only look at the sentient beings themselves from the moment when the security is separated, and we need to look at other sentient beings before the security is separated. If what we see together is showing unusual common external meaning, it should be established by reason, but the decision cannot be expressed by reason, because only when there is something in front of our minds can we settle down. If there is nothing in front of our minds, there is no measurable positive quantity. Therefore, the so-called "common" is only based on the similar or similar appearance in front of every living body. As for the existence of self, how can we establish an external reality? Knowing only knowledge and constantly knowing the truth about the current situation of famous sayings will certainly be very rich, otherwise it will be very difficult to know only knowledge and truth. Q 4。 There is also a metaphor of Indra. I wonder if I can make a metaphor. Each of the online 1000 spheres can reflect the other 999 spheres, as well as the other 999 spheres. Although they reflect each other, the 1000 spheres are still different, not one. As far as I am concerned, all sentient beings who are predestined friends with me appear in my realm, but the relationship between us is still different. A: Indra's metaphor is often used in Confucian classics to explain the infinity of the origin of Buddhism, thus breaking the suspicion that all beings hold that "all laws cannot be endless." Although this is not the meaning here, it is not impossible to interpret the connotation here with Indra's metaphor from the aspects of temporary similarity or metaphor similarity. From the self-image of each orb, each orb can reflect the image of the other 999 orbs. In fact, what else can this image be besides its own self-image? From the perspective of different orbs, how can thousands of orbs be the same? Only when they add to each other, increase each other and cause each other can they show each other in these different ways. If you master these meanings and the above statement, what can't be reconciled? As for whether your understanding can still hold water, there should be a conclusion through the above analysis. Q 5。 In which ancient books have such problems been expounded? Answer: The above questions can be found in Shurangama Sutra, Shen Jie Mi Jing, Mi Yan Jing, Mahayana Amitabha Sutra, Yoga Master's Discussion on Land, Mahayana Solemn Sutra, Discrimination between Law and Law, Discrimination between China and Border, Thirty Odes to Knowledge, Twenty Odes to Knowledge and Others.